Posted
by
CowboyNeal
on Thursday April 28, 2005 @05:38PM
from the road-bumps-to-launch dept.

An anonymous reader writes "Online retailer Tiger Direct has reportedly sued Apple over the use of the Tiger name just one day before the Mac maker is scheduled to roll-out its next-generation Mac OS X 10.4 'Tiger' operating system, according to an article at AppleInsider. TigerDirect, which owns trademarks on the names Tiger, TigerDirect and TigerSoftware, has requested an injunction that could prevent Friday's launch of the Tiger OS. Tiger Direct is also seeking damages and legal fees. 'Apple Computer has created and launched a nationwide media blitz led by Steven Jobs, overwhelming the computer world with a sea of Tiger references,' Tiger Direct's attorneys wrote in the lawsuit." While the suit may have some merit, it is odd for them to wait until now to try and halt such a heralded product.

In other news, Apple turns right back around and sues the actual Tiger animal (panthera tigris). Apple is claiming that the animal misled them to name their product after something occuring in nature and did not notify them that twenty million other companies out there have used the name Tiger to suggest a powerful sleek product.

In other shocking news, joining in TigerDirect's "Lawsuit" is a conglomeration of six hundred thousand Chinese Restaurants who also feel wronged by Apple's use of the word Tiger.

To only add to the confusion, the actual Apple fruit (malus pumila) is suing Apple for their misleading representation that the Apple fruit is always bitten out of.

The animal formerly known a a tiger, owing to mounting legal debts, has changed its name. It will now be known as an asparagus. It is hoped this will also confuse poachers, as hunting asparagus doesn't have the same ring to it.

Some may recall [google.com] famous mac operating system that was named "carl Sagan" and then changed to "Butthead astronomer" when Sagan sued for his trademark name. Later it was changed to just "BHA".

It wasn't the OS that was code-named "Carl Sagan," it was an early PowerMac model (the 7100).

Part of what might have upset Carl Sagan about the situation was that the other two models in the series (the 6100 and the 8100) were both given scientific hoaxes as code-names (Piltdown Man and Cold Fusion, respectively).

Gimme a break. Just like Apple sued Mac Mall and Club Mac, huh? This is just a grab for funds by Tiger Direct. They are allegedly being investigated for their rebate practices and their reseller rating has gone to shit. I wouldn't doubt it if this is a last ditch attempt to remain solvent.

Based on BBB files, this company has an unsatisfactory record with the Bureau due to a pattern of complaints and unanswered complaints.

Specifically our files show a pattern of complaints alleging dissatisfaction with product quality, failure to deliver promised goods, service issues, misrepresentation in advertising and marketing practices and the failure to address and overcome the basic cause of complaints brought to their attention by the Better Business Bureau.

Complaints allege customers are led to believe they are buying new, Brand Name computer systems, parts and other products with either a 90-day, or 1 year warranty. Complainants allege they are receiving generic, defective and refurbished items and only a 30-day warranty with the option to purchase the 1-year warranty. Customers who purchase the warranty also experience difficulty in getting return phone calls to get the problems fixed or replaced. Customer are told they may return the items for replacement, but they will need to pay again for the replacement and will credited back when the item is returned and received by the company.

Some of the complaints have issues with the advertised rebate, both the catalog and web site have numerous offers for items with a mail-in rebate. Upon receiving the products the rebate application is not included in the package. Customers are told the rebate application is on the website and customers are required to comply with the program and submit paperwork that they never received. Many are denied because the product they have purchased does not have the advertised rebate, the rebate has expired, and some rebates are only good if the item is purchased with a computer. Many customers feel they have been victims of bait and switch, and are unable to return the products because the package has been open. Customers who have contacted customer service with concerns have problem with getting return calls, emails, and experience unresponsiveness and unconcerned customer service staff.

I don't know how many times I reported them to the BBB for false advertising. They would say you are buying a 72,000 RPM drive, but the manufactures site said it was a 54,000 RPM (note, this was a long time ago)

At one point, I actually owned f***tigerdirect.com (wish I still had it, lost my job and didn't want to renew it when I had other things to worry about), but the E-Commerce direct told me that it was trademark infringement, and he was planning on sueing me. Nothing ever came of it.

I worked for Tiger for about a year and am (distantly) related to the owner. Trust me, they're dirtier than what they're being blamed for. Their policy is to make every customer buy an extender warranty but to never honor them. When I worked there they didn't even have a framework setup to make it possible to honor them. Oh yeh - good customer service there.

On the contrary, I learned in school long about about trademark. I can no more create a computer company named AppleSoftware, which infringes on the trademark of Apple any more than Apple can create an OS named Tiger than infringes on the TigerSoftware name. They are in the same market. Now, if they were making something called the Tiger Lawn Mower (if something like that didn't already exist), that's a completely different story.

Glad you covered that in school but that's a bit of an oversimplified perspective. It's a balance between how similar the markets of the two products are, how generic the name is, and possibility of confusion. Here, "computers" in general isn't all that narrow, "Tiger" is a pretty common name, and there's almost no possibility for confusion as one is a computer reseller and the other is an operating system. So there's little case for infringement here. Hell, the Windows vs. Lindows case wasn't open/shut, and there it was two operating systems, a much closer match.

Maybe Tiger Direct isn't that naive, but is Apple really that naive as well to just go take names?

You can't own something as generic as "Tiger."

It is certainly fair play that Apple has to play by the rules. All that imagination for computer design, but they couldn't come up with a more original, and unused, name?

OK then kid, you find a name less than 15 letters that hasn't been used in some way - any way, according to your logic - with computers. See how ridiculous that gets? That's why trademark protection isn't as broad as you seem to think.

Guess what, Apple... somebody already thought of it

No they didn't. They have a computer sales business named Tiger. There's no OS tamed Tiger. 'Til tomorrow.

Yes, you absolutely can if it pertains to a market where the term is arbitrary or fanciful. Apple can TM Tiger for operating systems, but not for pet stores. If they could, every pet store that sold/advertised "Tigers" would be an infringer. Courts will not allow you to effectively remove a term from the English language that a competitor must use to describe their goods. That is why trademarks are market specific.

I'd say you might be on to something, though TigerDirect seems to be making two arguments:1. The media blitz involving the word "Tiger" is hurting our ability to reach out to customers, and2. We should own the trademark to "Tiger"

Now, you're getting at the second argument. TigerDirect has already filed a case at the trademark office to overturn Apple's ownership of the word "Tiger" in this context.

Distinctly, however, this injunction is about the first argument. Nothing to do with trademark ownership, but, assuming ownership, that Apple is hurting their ability to reach customers. To lift from www.macrumors.com,

"The company says that Apple's use of Tiger has changed internet search results, directly impacting its ability to market product to its customers. The company alleges that Apple's use of the name has adversely affected its ranking among the internet's largest search engines, Google and Yahoo, bumping the company from its usual spot in the first three results."

Now, I fail to see how this adds up to a case personally. Search engine ranking is hardly property, or anything close to it. I call blackmail.

I am not a lawyer, but I can see Tiger Direct's point here. Tiger Direct certainly isn't guaranteed a position in the search engines, but it's reasonable to argue that if another company in the same sector (computer sales) infringes on a trademark they claim, hurting their search ranking in the process, then they've been injured by trademark infringement.

On the other hand, I don't see how filing the suit the day before the product launch could be anything but a stunt.

Searching on google and yahoo for "tiger direct", "tiger computers", "tiger computer", "tiger" and various other incarnations all show Tigerdirect.com and often tigerdirect.ca in the top 3 (with the exception of "tiger" on yahoo).

What exactly are people searching for that yield different results than these? Do they market themselves as "tiger" at all? I've only ever seen references to "TigerDirect" and I've never seen it refered to as "tiger" before. I'm in Canada (and I've bought stuff from them before) so maybe it's different in the US, but.. I don't see why this affects them so much.

What makes you think that? Seems we've reached the peak of hype for Tiger. It was all leading up to this point, the release date and climax; now it will settle down as people look forward to The Next Thing(tm).

but it's reasonable to argue that if another company in the same sector (computer sales) infringes on a trademark they claim, hurting their search ranking in the process, then they've been injured by trademark infringement.

Assuming that the method for search engines page ranking remains static, which it does not. I don't think you can base a lawsuit around what another, non-partner, unrelated company will or won't do (the unrelated company being Google). Google doesn't guarantee returning any specific

I do not understand their complaint about Google search rank. If I type "tiger direct", I get www.tigerdirect.com as the first result. Does it get any better than that?

If I type "tiger", the first result has to do with real tigers (the kind with paws). And that makes sense to me as well.

So I do not see their point. I think the real issue is that over the last year or so, Tiger Direct has become more and more irrelevant as other bargain stores enter the market, and they are hurting financially. Apples has comparatively deep pockets and Tiger Direct may be looking for some revenue.

Registering a trademark is not a requirement to enforcing your mark, but it certainly does help make your case. The problem is that if they don't have "Tiger" registered (which it looks like they don't from my own search), then they have a burden of proof to show that they are deserving of the mark.

That is called a *sig*. You can turn it off in your preferences if it annoys you. But ignoring the opinion in favor of attacking the sig is considered poor form around here and will generally get you modded down. Now go back and read again.

Last time I checked, it was illegal to trademark generic terms and numbers.

No it's not and never has been. Numbers by themselves are not trademarkable, yes. As the USPTO FAQ states, a trademark is "any word used or intended to be used in commerce to identify and distinguish the goods of one manufacturer or seller from goods manufactured or sold by others."

A company cannot own a generic word

Yes, yes they can. Trademarks are owned in a particular context. The most famous example is probably Apple. The Beatles' label Apple Corps owns the trademark on "Apple" as it applies to music and Apple Computer owns "Apple" as it applies to computers. This has led to a great deal of legal action with Apple's move into the music world.

Try searching TESS [uspto.gov] for common words and you'll have lots and lots of hits.

No, Microsoft owns several trademarks on just the word "Windows" in various categories, the oldest active one being from 1992 (#74274174).

Apple couldn't trademark "System"

Most likely because it was already in use or just because the word "System" is a fairly integral part of what the product is. You couldn't trademark the term "truck" in relation to selling pick-up trucks because it's not a unique name for your product. At the time Windows was registered windowing operating systems certainly existed, but no one marketed/sold them as that until Microsoft did. Calling your operating system "Windows" was a unique idea. At the time Apple would have tried to trademark "System" people would have been selling items called operating systems for easily a decade or more and calling your product "system x" would not have adequately differentiated it.

Wrong. Apple Computer, Inc. is the name of the company, and is a registered trademark of course, but the company holds Live trademarks in several categories for the word "Apple" by itself. The numbers are: 78170383, 78548796, 76116541, 74527910, 73201697, 73120444, 74660120.

The following are the same, only Apple let them lapse and are now Dead: 75063858, 73441547, 73309003, 73307818, 73303403, 73300046.

type in Tiger and look at all of the people who own "Tiger" for different products. The fact that they're both in the same industry has only mild significance. If TigerDirect sold software CALLED Tiger, then I would see the problem.

No kidding. If Apple is getting tons of publicity over "Tiger" then what better time for Tiger Direct to make their move? This will certainly get Tiger Direct publicity, which is really what this is all about: brand recognition. They want everyone to think of them, not Apple, when they hear "Tiger." If their web site is visited by only ten percent of the people who never heard of Tiger Direct before this lawsuit, it won't be able to keep up.

Trademarks are applied in specific domains. Tiger, as used by your local zoo, is not the same Tiger as the computer companies are using, or as a textile company, or a shipping company, or an airline, would use, despite them being spelled the same way.

WWF was having battles with the other WWF for years about the name. The World Widelife Fund finally won a few years back over the World Wrastlin' Federation. Are they in the same specific domain? Maybe, they both have to do with animals...

The World Wrestling Federation and the World Wide Fund for Nature (known as the World Wildlife Fund in the USA)
signed an agreement in 1994 which (among other things) limited the Federation's use of the WWF trademark in non-US markets.
In 2001, a British court found that the Federation had broken this agreement,
and awarded use of the wwf.com domain (previously held by the Federation) to the Fund.
If not for the 1994 agreement, it's likely that the Federation would have kept the domain (and wouldn't have changed its name to WWE).

I think the World Wildlife Fund screwed up big time. They should have licenced the WWF acronym and website to the "wrestling" folks. They could have taken in more money in a single WWF RAW event than an entire year's fundraising.

"Tiger" is trademarked by Tiger Direct as a computer retail service."Tiger" has a trademark pending by Apple as a computer operating system.The trademark applications are in different realms.

The thing I find interesting is that after tigerdirect failed to win in their case against tiger.com, they failed to register "tiger.net," or even contest it. They haven't done much to "defend" the tiger brand, and their business bears no association to tigers in branding.

Well, I can't say I'm a huge fan of TigerDirect, as they have fairly high prices, I *have* bought some more esoteric parts from them, as well as before NewEgg.com came out, and I've never been disappointed.

I'm also not a fan of Apple, as I absolutely hate using the 10.3 Macs we have in the lab here in our library.

However, this should be pretty clear-cut. If TigerDirect, a computer-related company, owns the trademark on Tiger, as applied to computer products, and Apple has been using that trademark without permission, then TigerDirect should be granted damages.

Especially since, I doubt them having the trademark on Tiger is a new thing.

1.) They don't have a trademark on Tiger, while Apple does.
2.) Trademarks for a computer reseller and a computer OS are in different domains and in most cases wouldn't conflict anyway.
3.) Timing is suspicious to say the least.
Personally, I see no case here whatsoever - just the hope of a quick settlement rather than a delayed launch or a court case.

First of all a trademark search shows something like three other companies who have just the word "Tiger" trademarked in the first page alone (with 1759 records total with tiger somewhere in the name). Second, why did they take so long to bring this up? Certainly Apple has some version of Mac OS Tiger trademarked, isn't it past the time to complain already? The real reason seems to be:

At the root of the issue appears to internet search results. Tiger Direct contends that Apple's use of the name has adversely affected its ranking amongst the Internet's largest search engines....

So does that mean they plan on taking on some non-profit who appears above them on google, because hey everyone knows I might get confused while searching for "tiger" instead of "tigerdirect" (which shows them ranked first btw). This whole things stinks of a "get rich quick by settlement" scam.

At the root of the issue appears to internet search results. Tiger Direct contends that Apple's use of the name has adversely affected its ranking amongst the Internet's largest search engines....

So does that mean they plan on taking on some non-profit who appears above them on google, because hey everyone knows I might get confused while searching for "tiger" instead of "tigerdirect" (which shows them ranked first btw).

I didn't even know there were open and shut trademark cases. Have you gone through the Polaroid factors with regards to this case? Have you taken account of the fact that Apple's use of the mark is with regards to the name of a good, and TD's use of the mark is with regards to a service they provide?

This is a grab for quick settlement money, no questions about it. Clever and slimey-- Apple can either take their chances fighting it (with a small chance to be hurt big) or pay TigerDirect cash. Blackmail, essentially, and the timing of this suit is proof.

I sincerely hope they'll fight it, not only because I believe the lawsuit is meritless and one should never give into blackmail, but also...

Apple has taken the "we defend our legal rights" stance when they've sued Tiger leakers. Fair enough. If they reverse their stance on that now when up against someone with lawyers, I think that'd be quite hypocritical.

Apple has taken the "we defend our legal rights" stance when they've sued Tiger leakers. Fair enough. If they reverse their stance on that now when up against someone with lawyers, I think that'd be quite hypocritical.

I don't think it's at all clear cut that Apple are in the right here. Sure, TigerDirect could have been more friendly than waiting until release day to slap on the suit, but if they own the trademark, they own it. Apple could (and should) have done a search before picking that name.

True. However, in fact TigerDirect does not own the trademark to Tiger-- Apple does.

Now, TigerDirect is challenging that at the trademark office, but Apple is the current owner. So I do think TigerDirect is in the wrong here for assuming certain rights that are in fact pursuant to the outcome of a pending appeal (which I personally don't believe will be found valid).

It's not just TigerDirect the mail-order sales company, but TigerDirect the mail-order computer hardware/software/accessories sales company. If you're not well versed and you're out looking for one of these Tigers, it's very likely that the other will confuse you.

This is to say nothing of who is right, wrong or the owner of whatever trademark, just that there does appear to be a legitimate cause for friction here.

Not necessarily the case, and from what I know of trademark laws there has to be more to the story than what we are seeing here.

For those in the know companies spend hundreds of thousands on trademark research with companies such as Namprotect [nameprotect.com] and Thomson and Thomson [thomson-thomson.com] who make millions from clients who research Trademarks, Service Marks, and Copyrights years (sometimes minutes) before they even plan on utilizing the mark. So that they can avoid situations like this.

Now who really wants to bet that Apple did not do their due diligence by using a trademark research firm?

Everyone assumes that this is some sort of money grab because the company waited till the last minute.

It is entirely possible that the entire reason that they waited so long is that they've been talking to Apple about this the entire time. It is also entirely possible that Apple only *recently* gave Tiger Direct "the finger."

Unless you're a member of the Apple legal team or an employee of Tiger Direct, I find it hard to believe that you can be so certain that TD is in the wrong here.

I stopped using TigerDirect years ago after they refused to accept a return on product that they falsely advertised. A dual-processor motherboard that required an extra APIC chip to use the second processor, and despite listing both as in stock when I ordered, the APIC was on back-order for over a month. Since I had not opened the box yet I just went to Fry's and bought a motherboard and called to cancel the APIC and return the useless board. The customer service people were uncooperative and the "manager" I talked to was downright rude.

So, despite having spent thousands of dollars there, they decided that they would rather lose both my personal business and that of the company I work for than accept a return on an unopened $120 board they sold under false pretenses.

Don't fool yourself -- you get what you pay for. TigerDirect is cheap because their service sucks the big one.

Don't fool yourself -- you get what you pay for. TigerDirect is cheap because their service sucks the big one.

Service and products.

A family member bought a WinXP-loaded Celeron from them. I told her to expect the machine to be worth exactly what she paid. I didn't know I should have warned her to expect it to be worth less than she paid. Cheap doesn't begin to describe it... you don't have to know computers to know it's cheap, cheap, cheap. This is the company that makes Dell look good.

I (think) have you beat. I bought a desktop from tigerdirect and they never sent a mouse. Customer service was in Canada*, and had no 800 number. So I had to make an out-of-country call, wait on hold for 45 minutes, to get someone to take my number and call me back in the next 48 hours!

Not only was the computer not near any phone, but the rate they called back was somewhat dissapointing. The computer had these new PS2 mouse jacks and I finally convinced someone to send me a new mouse (conversations usually included them saying "but aren't they pretty inexpensive" and me saying "yes they are. I bought one from you and you should send it to me."). The new mouse was serial (while this would have worked, I wanted what was promised with the system). After spending several weeks working on contacting them again, they sent me an adapter. However the adapter would allow you to plug a ps2 mouse into a serial port. After receiving the phone bill, I finally gave up. My unsatisfied principals has cost me nominally $75 in phone charges, so I have up. What a waste of a company. But I have done everything I can to talk people out of buying from them.

In hindsight, I guess you were out more money then I was, but at the time, I was very pissed

*Within a year after that, I read somewhere their customer support finally got an 800 number.

Seriously, why they would wait so long when OS X 'Tiger' was announced months ago, I do not know.Maybe they're just trying to get their name out there, I hadn't thought of or looked at TigerDirect's web site in a few years, as I had found other retailers to buy computer junk through.It's not like I personally would think that Apple's operating system had anything to do with a mass PC parts vendor.

In America, any publicity is good publicity, and the easiest lately seems to be to target a popular company/person with a lawsuit, irregardless of how frivolous.Any serious action to prevent Apple's use of the name should have been sought when it was first announced, not wait until the eve of the product launch. This just gives the impression of riding on the coattails of Apple's popularity.

When I originally heard of OSX Tiger, I never even imagined a link "TigerDirect." Not that I care about Apple, but now when I hear OSX Tiger, I'll be sure to think "TigerDirect, another corporate bastard."

it is odd for them to wait until now to try and halt such a heralded product.

Not odd at all, for a few reasons. Only upper management (let's call them the CxOs) would have the corporate clout to initiate a lawsuit against a big-name corp like Apple. Consider the following hypothetical scenarios:

1. Prior Apple products have had internal code names that were used in a semi-public way. (The Sagan/BHA saga comes to mind.) The CxOs thought Tiger was just such a code name, and, being clueless as only management can be, didn't realize until this late that it was not the case.

2. The CxOs, being clueless as only management can be, hadn't heard of Apple's "Tiger" until now.

3. The CxOs, realizing that this was an open-and-shut case, figured they'd give Apple enough rope to hang themselves. They're all expert blackmailers - sorry, "negotiators" - and know that Apple is now facing a time crunch. Apple has a hard deadline and must settle on Tiger Direct's terms.

Don't know about you, but #3 strikes me as really plausible. I don't know if that makes me cynical or just experienced, but I don't see Tiger's behavior as odd, in the sense of "statistically unusual".

According to a search on USPTO.gov using Tiger Direct on the owner name as my search parameters I don't see them having a trade mark on Tiger.

They have 11 entries almost al with the word Tiger in them but not the word Tiger alone. In fact all of their trademarks with tiger in them are one word entries.XCONNECTTIGERPC.COMTIGERTV.COMTIGE RSYSTEMSTIGERDIRECTTIGERDIRECTTIGERDIRECT.CO Mthere are all the live trademarks.

Point one: Absolutely right on. A trademark issuance can take bloody forever, especially if someone is contesting it. If someone is contesting it who actually has a case, no matter how weak, and who actually wants to stretch it out, it can take ten years.

Point two:

Oh and Tiger Direct is not really a "third-rate mail order house" They have been around for quite awhile.

So have 'Smith Bros. Cough Drops'. (Sugar and gelatin, no medication at all.) So have those fake-Disney cartoons you see at drug stor

1. Whether or not there is a trademark issue here is far more complex issue to sort out than any of the random speculation that is going on here at slashdot.

2. The courts won't look kindly upon the litigant if it can be shown that they actually chose to wait until the last minute to claim, i.e. an attempt to wield maximum damage on Apple.

The test for trademark infringement is basically whether or not the use of the mark causes confusion, and the use of the mark has to be within the same "area" that the original mark is registered for.

I don't think TigerDirect has a good case: Apple's use of "Tiger" has always been subordinate to "OS/X" and "10.4" - how often have you seen Apple use the word Tiger as itself? In addition, Apple demonstrate history of using cat words, of which Tiger is merely one in a line.

I just read the complaint and memorandum of TigerDirect. They have some legitimate beef:

1) Apple only announced the April 29th launch date publicly on April 12, 2005. That's critical in asking "Why only now?" -- there was nothing imminent prior to that.

2) Apple tried registering "Tiger" as a trademark (with intent-to-use) in July 2003, but was denied b/c of possible confusion. Apple won the Tiger trademark by agreeing to limit its use to computer operating software.

3) Tiger attempted to settle, and then filed an opposition to Apple's mark in December 2004.

4) Tiger has six registered marks, and several other common-law marks.

Much of this wouldn't matter (IMHO) if Apple wasn't a reseller itself. But since they do sell many of the same products as TigerDirect, there is a beef. Tiger makes a good case that Apple is using the Tiger mark more broadly that it is entitled, to venture into other sales areas than just operating systems, and that that can affect Tiger's revenues. Here's a quote from their court memorandum:

"Apple Computer's use of its infringing family of Tiger marks to expand sales of products besides its operating system software is already evident -- for example, Apple Computer is offering free iPods and laptops as part of its Tiger World Premiere giveaway. In short, notwithstanding its representation to the PTO that it would only use Tiger in connection with their unique computer operating system software, Apple Computer has in recent weeks used a family of Tiger marks in connection wiht a substantially broader group of products and services, including the very products and services currently offered by Tiger Direct under its famous family of Tiger marks."

Personally, I don't think this passes the "likelihood of confusion" test, but that's for a court to decide. If I were in TigerDirect's shoes, I'd similarly be upset.

You make some good points. It occurs to me as I read your post that someone who is confused by TigerDirect and Apple's Tiger is probably wondering why TigerDirect doesn't sell, you know, actual live Tigers... direct.

Based on BBB files, this company has an unsatisfactory record with the Bureau due to a pattern of complaints and unanswered complaints.

Specifically our files show a pattern of complaints alleging dissatisfaction with product quality, failure to deliver promised goods, service issues, misrepresentation in advertising and marketing practices and the failure to address and overcome the basic cause of complaints brought to their attention by the Better Business Bureau.

Complaints allege customers are led to believe they are buying new, Brand Name computer systems, parts and other products with either a 90-day, or 1 year warranty. Complainants allege they are receiving generic, defective and refurbished items and only a 30-day warranty with the option to purchase the 1-year warranty. Customers who purchase the warranty also experience difficulty in getting return phone calls to get the problems fixed or replaced. Customer are told they may return the items for replacement, but they will need to pay again for the replacement and will credited back when the item is returned and received by the company.

Some of the complaints have issues with the advertised rebate, both the catalog and web site have numerous offers for items with a mail-in rebate. Upon receiving the products the rebate application is not included in the package. Customers are told the rebate application is on the website and customers are required to comply with the program and submit paperwork that they never received. Many are denied because the product they have purchased does not have the advertised rebate, the rebate has expired, and some rebates are only good if the item is purchased with a computer. Many customers feel they have been victims of bait and switch, and are unable to return the products because the package has been open. Customers who have contacted customer service with concerns have problem with getting return calls, emails, and experience unresponsiveness and unconcerned customer service staff. However, the company has responded to most complaints presented by the Bureau.

Licensing Information

This company is in an industry that may require licensing, bonding or registration in order to lawfully do business. The Bureau encourages you to check with the appropriate agency to be certain any requirements are currently being met.

On November 4, 1999, case C3903, the Federal Trade Commissionissued a Decision & Order against Tiger Direct for violationsof the Pre-sale Availability Rule, the Disclosure Rule and theWarranty Act. Without admitting any wrong doing, Tiger Directagrees to 1) not represent that it provides On-Site Serviceunless all limitations and conditions that apply are disclosed;2) fulfill obligations under the warranty within a reasonableperiod of time after receiving notice from the consumer; and3) shall cease and desist from failing to make warranty textavailable for examination prior to s

Tiger, owned by Systemax Inc. (owners of TigerDirect.com) and first used in 1987, filed in 2000 and registered in 2002. Serial no. 75915934

and

Tiger, owned by Apple Computer Inc. Not yet registered, but filed in 2003 with publication for opposition in August 2004. Serial no. 78269988

While this seems the end for Apple's Tiger, a closer look reveals the important bits. Apple's Tiger has been filed for "computer operating system software", while Systemax's Tiger was registered for "Mail order catalog services featuring computers and computer related products; and Retail store services featuring computers and computer related products."

They are two very different uses for the trademark. I'm sure Apple's lawyers will pounce on this fact. TigerDirect does not have much of a chance of pulling this one off.

On top of this, waiting until the day before the product launch was not the best plan for TigerDirect. Apple's tradmark was published for opposition last year. Given all the publicity, TigerDirect's management would definately have known about this long before now. Any decent judge would see TigerDirect's real intentions in filing this late.

I suspect that TigerDirect's managment are hoping that Apple's lawyers are stupid and will settle immedaitely. If this is the case then I think TigerDirect's management are in for a rude awakening. Steve Jobs will fight this one.

Ah, the American legal system strikes again, calling forth armies of lawyers to waste a company's money on stupid claims that would be laughed out of court anywhere else, creating costs that in the end have to be paid for by the customer, and keeping people from doing serious work. These clowns waited one whole year to file at the last moment? Try telling a judge in Germany or Japan or the Netherlands how acutely you have been feeling the pain after pulling this kind of a stunt. If this was for real, they would have filed their claim eleven months ago the latest. Unfortunately, it is even conceivable they're going to get away with it.

The anachronism that is American's 18th Century
Common Law [wikipedia.org] legal system has proven itself inferior to the modern
Civil Law [wikipedia.org] systems in the rest of the world so many times just in the last years just in tech that it just isn't funny anymore. You do remember that SCO is still wasting IBM's time and money in a U.S. court, with no end in sight? You notice how the rest of the world got that crap out of their systems long ago?

Sadly for us Americans, there is no chance in hell for a serious, basic and fundamental legal reform. With a Congress filled full of lawyers, our sputtering system of codified greed won't even have to face the slight correction of a tort reform.

First off, how does it make sense to anyone whatsoever that common nouns like "tiger", "windows", etc. should be subject to copyright? It's absolute lunacy. If these companies exercised any cleverness in coming up with a unique name that wasn't already found in the language of manufacture, alright, I could see how copyrights should be allowed... but for existing nouns? There's no creativity to be found there.

It's not quite that simple. First off, when you're granted a trademark, eg. "Windows", it's for a specific area of commerce. MS owns a trademark on the word windows as the name of a piece of software. Apple is still free to talk about windows in their operating system. There are still plenty of companies manufacturing actual, physical glass windows that use that word in their name. Trademarks do serve an important function that's useful to the everyday person, in that it clears up confusion, helps us make c

While the suit may have some merit, it is odd for them to wait until now to try and halt such a heralded product.

TigerDirect is a seller of PCs, and as such has an interest in seeing Apple do worse. That's why they waited and sat quietly while Apple promoted Tiger for the past 12 months, only to threaten to sue and seek an injunction days before its release. That's grounds for a dismissal of their claim, IMO, because they knowingly let their "trademark" go undefended for that length of time prior to acting. It's not self-defense, it's acting with malicious intentions.

Funny yes. Tiger must have known about this for a while, since searching for "tiger" on their website yields 4 Powermac systems with (you guessed it) Tiger!...with an additional 5% markup on the Macs over MSRP.

Mac OS (through version 9.2): Older cooperative-multitasking-based systems. 9.2 is still supported under OS X as "Classic", but for more than a year you haven't been able to buy a Mac that would boot 9.x by itself.Mac OS X 10.0 - "Cheetah". The first cut at the new version. It was updated with minor service packs a few times, then in fall 2001 it was replaced with:Mac OS X 10.1 - "Puma". Really just the equivalent of a Windows service pack, despite the numbering. It was handed out by Apple as a free update CD. They added the DVD player, fixed a lot of bugs, and such.Mac OS X 10.2 - "Jaguar". Jaguar was the first version to actually get the "big cat" name made an official part of the product name (the previous names were code names only). Jaguar got updates through 10.2.8, and still is supported with the occasional security update. The biggest change from a GUI perspective was the move to the "brushed metal" look.Mac OS X 10.3 = "Panther". Panther was released in October 2003, about a year after Jaguar. As it's been around for a year and a half, it's gotten point updates up to 10.3.9.

Basically, there's no direct analogue between the two, but the closest thing in Mac land to a Windows-style service pack was the 10.0 to 10.1 update. It was a free CD at the Apple Stores and from resellers (you could buy it for $20 as a shrinkwrapped update kit IIRC). They didn't make it available for download, though.

Typically, Apple point releases are simply bugfixes and occasional minor feature upgrades (10.3.9 just gave us the new Safari 1.3, which shares most of its guts with Tiger's Safari RSS 2.0), new drivers, etc. But they release them every 2-3 months or so, whereas Microsoft tends to roll a lot more stuff into a service pack, and they release them far less frequently - like every year or two. XP came out in 2001, and they're only on SP2 for it. But Microsoft releases bugfixes and security updates regularly in between service packs - Apple does some of that as well but mostly relies on point releases.

But to Apple overall, they think of what looks like a "minor" update by the version numbers as a major one, and it usually is in terms of features added and the like. Check out the analysis on Ars to see what all the new goodies really entail.

So I take it that the title 'You Fuckers' was meant in a kind and loving sense?

I actually got a good giggle out of this, because I think you honestly believe that titling a comment 'You fuckers' and calling everyone who disagrees with you 'brainwashed' is not flame-bait.

But okay, I'll bite... perhaps you're complaining about the moderation because you don't really know what 'flame-bait' means. Flame-bait doesn't necessarily mean that the person who is posting is wrong... it just means that their comment was posted in just a way as to invite flamage.

For example: if I posted that I thought that desktop Linux was really coming along, and that more people really ought to consider it as an alternative to Windows, I wouldn't be modded down as flamebait. If I posted that desktop Linux still had too many usability problems and that Windows was still better for end users, I wouldn't either. If I posted that I thought anyone who used Windows when Linux was available was a cretin who shouldn't be allowed to breed, I would almost certainly be modded down as flamebait (unless I said it in a fucking hilarious way), and the same goes for saying the same thing about people using desktop Linux.

So, in case you still can't see what you did, a helpful hint: calling people 'fuckers' because they believe different things than you, even if what they believe is so obviously wrong that you just can't imagine anyone actually believing it and it makes you nauseous to even consider the idea that anyone could believe it... well, that invites flames. And thus is flame-bait.

Yeah, but since they don't actually own the trademark to Tiger, they're really shooting blanks on this one...

Not to mention they just lost the ability to sell iPods. Wait a few days, if this gets any more press and any more aggravation and really does affect Tiger's sale (not release, since they're not going to court tomorrow), Apple will wait until TigerDirect loses.... then pull the reseller stuff and prevent them from selling ANY Apple branded products.

Now, in the case of iPods, that's gotta be a money maker even for these clods (judging from the sale of iPods in general...).

So I guess they haven't thought this crap through. Not that I'd buy from them anyway with their track record, but they have indeed sealed their fate with the millions of mac users (if this inhibits them from buying Tiger) who will never buy from them again, or for the first time. Not to mention they'll tell everyone they know not to as well.